kraisee - 26/10/2006 4:55 PMI agree with you Meiza, this isn't primarily designed for sat. launches (although it is capable of lifting 5 replacement TRDS satellites to GEO in one shot), no. DIRECT's primary purpose is to enable the manned program of exploration of our solar system
JIS - 26/10/2006 1:43 PMRoss, very very similar approach was considered in ESAS.
rumble - 27/10/2006 9:00 AMJim, I thought about docking to extract the payload, but is there enough time after MECO and before the 1st circularization burn to turn around & pull it out? Or should we allow the core to become orbital (60X160 or something), then put retros on it to make it suborbital again after the CEV extracts the payload?The other idea I had is having a small kick stage just behind the payload module so it could perform the 1st post-MECO burn, buying more time before the CEV had to dock with it.
kraisee - 26/10/2006 11:42 PMConsider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.Ross.
Jim - 27/10/2006 7:34 AMIt causes most of the load to be "hung" vs axial compression.
clongton - 27/10/2006 7:38 PMQuoteJim - 27/10/2006 7:34 AMIt causes most of the load to be "hung" vs axial compression.How is that different from Shuttle?
MKremer - 27/10/2006 10:00 PMOK, I can envision something like - an ISS module cargo 'cage' with a bare, passive CBM at one end, and an Orion dock at the other. That 'cage' would also need enough power by itself to supply launch-to-ISS-docking heating and health data transmission via some kind of relay to MCC.So in summary, the integrated vehicle launches, the Orion CM/SM docks with the ISS cargo 'cage', then goes through ISS rendezvous and station-keeping for CBM docking via SSRM, Orion undocking from the 'cage' and doing its own ISS docking, then removing the ISS module (via SSRM) from the 'cage' for its own mating. At the end of the mission, Orion re-docks with the 'cage', the CBM is released, then Orion follows a re-entry procedure that releases the 'cage' for it's own re-entry disposal before it re-enters itself.
clongton - 27/10/2006 9:59 PMQuoteMKremer - 27/10/2006 10:00 PMSo in summary, the integrated vehicle launches, the Orion CM/SM docks with the ISS cargo 'cage', then goes through ISS rendezvous and station-keeping for CBM docking via SSRM, Orion undocking from the 'cage' and doing its own ISS docking, then removing the ISS module (via SSRM) from the 'cage' for its own mating. At the end of the mission, Orion re-docks with the 'cage', the CBM is released, then Orion follows a re-entry procedure that releases the 'cage' for it's own re-entry disposal before it re-enters itself.What I envision is similar, but without the separate Orion/Cargo Cage docking maneuver.
MKremer - 27/10/2006 10:00 PMSo in summary, the integrated vehicle launches, the Orion CM/SM docks with the ISS cargo 'cage', then goes through ISS rendezvous and station-keeping for CBM docking via SSRM, Orion undocking from the 'cage' and doing its own ISS docking, then removing the ISS module (via SSRM) from the 'cage' for its own mating. At the end of the mission, Orion re-docks with the 'cage', the CBM is released, then Orion follows a re-entry procedure that releases the 'cage' for it's own re-entry disposal before it re-enters itself.
1. Power to the cage would be supplied by the SM.2. The integrated vehicle launches, and Orion-C rendezvous with ISS to a station-keeping position, without demating; CEV in front, cargo cage behind it, SM at the end.3. The cargo cage (CC) opens its sides, and the station captures and removes the payload with the station arm.4. The cargo cage closes its sides and Orion proceeds to dock with the station.5. At end of mission, the intigrated Orion-C undocks, does the de-orbit burn, jetisons the SM/cage combination and re-enters the atmosphere. SM & cage burn up.
kraisee - 26/10/2006 10:42 PMHere's a novel concept which DIRECT could offer as a performance upgrade.Our very own Chuck Longton from this forum, suggested this idea to me earlier this evening. A quick bit of tinkering with the artwork, and I can show it to you all now...It is basically a "cargo bay" squeezed in between the Crew Module and Service Module of the CEV.Even the basic variant of DIRECT certainly has more than enough performance to lift such an item as this to the ISS.It does not change the aerodynamic profile for the CLV, although there is no reason it could not be lengthened if required.A transmission tunnel running up the spine of the new module connects the CM and SM together largely as normal.This would immediatly offer the ability to deliver the remianing ISS elements which are no longer planned to fly, and are simply gathering dust, and any other valuable hardware which will be relegated to the scrapheap with Ares-I.Consider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.Ross.
AndyMc - 28/10/2006 4:24 AMFrom your diagram Ross, it looks to me as though an airlock module could fit behind the CM, which fitted with a hatch in the heatshield, would enable EVAs for fixing Hubble and the like without de-pressurizing the CM.
MKremer - 27/10/2006 11:57 PMQuote Um, regardless of whether the ISS module goes up on its own or rides with the CEV booster, you *will* need a docking maneuver between the CEV and the ISS module 'cage' once everything gets to orbit. How else would it get from the launch orbit to the ISS orbit and into SSRMS capture station-keeping? No docking maneuver is required because the CC is already physically attached between the CM and the SM. It is a “cargo bay” of sorts, like in Shuttle. Together these 3 items CM (Command Module), CC (Cargo Cage) and SM (Service Module) form 1 single ship, just like Shuttle. Likewise, the Orion-C (Orion-Cargo) is one single spacecraft, consisting of 3, solidly connected modules.Orion is a 2-module spacecraft (ignoring the abort tower), consisting of CM & SM. Think of the CC as a "cage", an extension on the fwd side of the SM, PERMANENTLY attached to the SM. For Orion-C, a 3-module spacecraft, the CM attaches to the fwd end of the CC in the same manner as it does to the SM in the 2-module version. The basic Orion delivers crew to some destination. Orion-C is optimised to deliver crew AND cargo to some destination. That cargo can be in a pressurized OR unpressurized module, mounted in the CC "cage", and secured at the CC aft end and along the axial spline/tunnel.Together this integrated spacecraft does the circularization burn using the SM engine, arrives at ISS to a station-keeping position, where the SSRMS extracts the payload. The Orion-C spacecraft then moves to a docking port and docks, all 3 modules together, with the "cage" now empty.QuoteQuote1. Power to the cage would be supplied by the SM. 2. The integrated vehicle launches, and Orion-C rendezvous with ISS to a station keeping position, without de-mating; CEV in front, cargo cage behind it, SM at the end. 3. The cargo cage (CC) opens its sides, and the station captures and removes the payload with the station arm. 4. The cargo cage closes its sides and Orion proceeds to dock with the station. 5. At end of mission, the integrated Orion-C undocks, does the de-orbit burn, jettisons the SM/cage combination and re-enters the atmosphere. SM & cage burn up. Quote 1) Won't allow any temp or health data from pre-launch to docking (quite important) without its own power source (likely batteries) and transmitter. I think you’re assuming that the SM has no batteries, only solar cells. I’m not clear on that. If true, then you are correct. But if batteries are onboard the SM, like I think they are, then power can come from them, which would be the preferred method. It keeps the CC as simple as possible. All the required data monitoring devices can be built into the CC and connected to the power/data tunnel going the length of the CC from SM to CM. These should be standard "off-the-shelf" instrumention which can be mounted in the CC, connected to the payload, and plugged into the tunnel.Can someone else on this thread speak to this? Does the SM have batteries onboard as part of it’s power system?Quote 3) Don't see a need for "sides" - the cargo 'cage'/cargo carrier should be completely open once the LV outer fairing is gone. No need for any additional enclosure.4) Again, no need for "sides" - there's just the cargo 'cage' with Orion docked to one end. The “sides” form the physical structure and connection from the CM to the SM. My personal preference would be for some type of "cage" structure, not solid sides. Something like the cage that goes around a ladder attached to the side of an industrial building. Just enough "structure" to provide connection and strength. The “space” in between IS the CC, where the cargo/payload is secured. Together, this is a single spacecraft consisting of crew, cargo and propulsion/power modules.Quote 5) Agreed. Once the 'cage' is empty it serves no other useful purpose, so Orion re-docks to the 'cage', the 'cage' is released from the CBM port, then Orion moves it into a disposal orbit on the way to its own re-entry. No "re-dock" is required, because it never "docks" in the 1st place. The entire 3-module integrated spacecraft docks at the ISS, stays for the duration, undocks from ISS, does the de-orbit burn, then Orion CM sheds the SM/CC combination and re-enters the atmosphere.
Um, regardless of whether the ISS module goes up on its own or rides with the CEV booster, you *will* need a docking maneuver between the CEV and the ISS module 'cage' once everything gets to orbit. How else would it get from the launch orbit to the ISS orbit and into SSRMS capture station-keeping?
Quote1. Power to the cage would be supplied by the SM. 2. The integrated vehicle launches, and Orion-C rendezvous with ISS to a station keeping position, without de-mating; CEV in front, cargo cage behind it, SM at the end. 3. The cargo cage (CC) opens its sides, and the station captures and removes the payload with the station arm. 4. The cargo cage closes its sides and Orion proceeds to dock with the station. 5. At end of mission, the integrated Orion-C undocks, does the de-orbit burn, jettisons the SM/cage combination and re-enters the atmosphere. SM & cage burn up.
1. Power to the cage would be supplied by the SM. 2. The integrated vehicle launches, and Orion-C rendezvous with ISS to a station keeping position, without de-mating; CEV in front, cargo cage behind it, SM at the end. 3. The cargo cage (CC) opens its sides, and the station captures and removes the payload with the station arm. 4. The cargo cage closes its sides and Orion proceeds to dock with the station. 5. At end of mission, the integrated Orion-C undocks, does the de-orbit burn, jettisons the SM/cage combination and re-enters the atmosphere. SM & cage burn up.
1) Won't allow any temp or health data from pre-launch to docking (quite important) without its own power source (likely batteries) and transmitter.
3) Don't see a need for "sides" - the cargo 'cage'/cargo carrier should be completely open once the LV outer fairing is gone. No need for any additional enclosure.4) Again, no need for "sides" - there's just the cargo 'cage' with Orion docked to one end.
5) Agreed. Once the 'cage' is empty it serves no other useful purpose, so Orion re-docks to the 'cage', the 'cage' is released from the CBM port, then Orion moves it into a disposal orbit on the way to its own re-entry.
clongton - 27/10/2006 7:33 PMQuotekraisee - 26/10/2006 11:42 PMConsider this simply a 'concept' of what might be possible if the Crew Launch Vehicle has 70mT lift capacity instead of just 22mT.Ross.Ross, Shuttle has carried lots of military and DoD payloads to orbit. Do you think the DoD and/or the USAF would be interested in a "Destiny Science Module" sized orbital "object"? Perhaps this concept needs to find it's way to these agencies, showing this "possibility", manned or unmanned.Chuck